George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    While I tend to believe there was some kind of confrontation, I'm not convinced it wasn't started by Zimmerman.  There's no clear evidence either way. It's a "he said, she said" thing, except one of the two parties is dead and can't speak. 

     

     

     

    Still, there was no reason for any of this to happen.  Zimmerman merely had to turn away and he had ample opportunity to do so.  We know Zimmerman had convicted the kid in his head based solely on the kid's appearance, was following the kid in his car, got out of his car, and had a gun.  Seems to me that there's a strong likelihood that Zimmerman was playing rambo.  Martin may have attacked him feeling threatened or may himself have acted in self defense if Zimmerman attacked Martin first.  We can't know that . . . but I do know with 100% certainty that this all could have been avoided if Zimmerman had turned away.  I do blame Zimmerman for that.  Not guilty maybe, but certainly responsible for the death of an innocent 17 year old. 

     

     


    What we. Elie e individually vs what the jury had as credible evidence to decide over are waaaay different situations. I agree it could have been avoided, but we must consider that. Multiple robberies had taken place recently in that very complex. GZ is neighborhood watch. Its a terribly difficult scenario to evaluate without real evidence. The jury feels GZ was being a concerned citisen. its the difference between what each of us would do under the same circumstances. There is not a definitive answer. 

     




    Technically, the jury makes no such judgment.  It simply says there was not enough evidence to convict.  Whether Zimmerman was a acting as a concerned citizen or not isn't really the issue. 

    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah, you are right. What I should have said is that the jury felt that GZ has the right to follow anyone he wants to while on public property and without the need for any reason. Good point! 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, Zimmerman has that right.  But what people need to understand is that the juries finding is very narrow.  All the jury says is that the evidence wasn't sufficient to convict Zimmerman of the charges.  It says nothing about Martin or about whether Zimmerman's actions were good or not. It simply, and very narrowly, says that the evidence was not enough to prove guilt of the charged crimes. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    While I tend to believe there was some kind of confrontation, I'm not convinced it wasn't started by Zimmerman.  There's no clear evidence either way. It's a "he said, she said" thing, except one of the two parties is dead and can't speak. 

     

     

     

    Still, there was no reason for any of this to happen.  Zimmerman merely had to turn away and he had ample opportunity to do so.  We know Zimmerman had convicted the kid in his head based solely on the kid's appearance, was following the kid in his car, got out of his car, and had a gun.  Seems to me that there's a strong likelihood that Zimmerman was playing rambo.  Martin may have attacked him feeling threatened or may himself have acted in self defense if Zimmerman attacked Martin first.  We can't know that . . . but I do know with 100% certainty that this all could have been avoided if Zimmerman had turned away.  I do blame Zimmerman for that.  Not guilty maybe, but certainly responsible for the death of an innocent 17 year old. 

     

     


    What we. Elie e individually vs what the jury had as credible evidence to decide over are waaaay different situations. I agree it could have been avoided, but we must consider that. Multiple robberies had taken place recently in that very complex. GZ is neighborhood watch. Its a terribly difficult scenario to evaluate without real evidence. The jury feels GZ was being a concerned citisen. its the difference between what each of us would do under the same circumstances. There is not a definitive answer. 

     

     

     


     

     

    Technically, the jury makes no such judgment.  It simply says there was not enough evidence to convict.  Whether Zimmerman was a acting as a concerned citizen or not isn't really the issue. 

     


    Yeah, you are right. What I should have said is that the jury felt that GZ has the right to follow anyone he wants to while on public property and without the need for any reason. Good point! 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, Zimmerman has that right.  But what people need to understand is that the juries finding is very narrow.  All the jury says is that the evidence wasn't sufficient to convict Zimmerman of the charges.  It says nothing about Martin or about whether Zimmerman's actions were good or not. It simply, and very narrowly, says that the evidence was not enough to prove guilt of the charged crimes. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly my point from the very beginning. See, the prosecution, as narrowly as the defenses case was, had absolutely NO GROUNDS for taking this case to trial. Civil rights activists pushed, and viola! (Before anyone starts yelling racist at me, I am a minority class American.) BUT, in the end, it played out as nearly every law understanding individual assumed. NO EVIDENCE against self defense. So, in the end, a huge waste of tax payer dollars, and lots and lots of time. Do I know that GZ didn't do something wrong? NO! But in the end, NOBODY EVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE DID. That part wasn't gonna change.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I don't know if justice was served but the rule of law was upheld. There was no way, based on the evidence, that any jury could bring in a guilty verdict. The court of public opinion can argue the point on whether Zimmerman created a no-win situation for himself and Martin by continuing pursuit after the police told him to cease-and-desist. But this is a country of laws and while these laws may not be perfect, they get as close to objective due process as is possible for the human animal, and they were applied fairly by this jury. They spent 16 hours trying to adjudicate a difficult circumstantial case and I think they did it very, very well.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Follow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed unless convicted. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up with this "fine line" bull shyte? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER or NOT GUILTY (deemed to be self defense) other wise your saying GZ is "POSSIBLY NOT NOT GUILTY" We don't have that option in the USA. That is what the State is tasked with disproving and they couldn't. Damn man, stop!

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I


    Z

    How do you know and why do you keep saying he was an innocent 17yo?

    How do you know he wasn't planning another burglary and acting suspicious in doing so?

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Martin was committing a crime or planning to commit a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him?  Whether or not he had done something bad in the past is completely irrelevant. 

    As far as what was in his backpack at school, it has no bearing on this particular event.  And, in fact, the Boston Globe reported this about the jewelry:

    SANFORD, Fla.—Women's jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.

    The conservative web site you refer to does not seem to be a very reliable source, but even if Martin had broken the law in the past, it's completely irrelevant to what happened when he was shot because there's no evidence at all that he was committing a crime then.   




    Well, the Miami Herald reported the same jewelry was found but did not tie it to the burglary, just blocks away. Regardless, the incident was kept internally and never disclosed.

    Sorry but wedding bands and diamond earrings along with a long flat head are not usually items 16 yr olds carry in their backpack and there is plenty reason to suspect a crime but it was never pursued.   It was also never reported to his parents.  Wouldn't you be asking questions if you found your child to be in possession of those.  Would you accept that an unnamed friend gave them to him?

    It's very possible that his past has everything to do with the case as the items were found in trying to find the marking instrument as he was also seen on film "acting suspiciously", hiding and ducking, and ultimately caught committing a crime as a result and suspended.

    The initial call to 911 paints a similar scenario and as reported, there was a current problem with break-ins in the area. 

    He was doing what he always did in an attempt to deter a crime.  He was a law abiding citizen with a license to carry a gun.  What is the problem with that?

    There is also evidence as another poster stated that he did stop the pursuit, after being told to, and Martin came back to him. 

    So what do you do then?  Let the guy bash your head in and reach for your gun?

    He was in a fight for his life with a not so innocent person.

    I really doubt he would have used it otherwise.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"
    That's all they say.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to MelWitt's comment:

     

    You must mean THIS Chester, right?


    How could you say this widdle puppy wasn't innocent.....



    No, I don't. It is a manner of saying " a long time"  I could have used " since Christ was a Corporal."  Maybe you would have understood that.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"

     

     

     


    OK, I'm with ya. NOT GUILTY automatically rules that GZ was acting in self defense.  They all had to agree "NOT GUILTY" or we'd still be at it.....What are you implying? AND, so you know, when the jury is polled, they individually are asked and verbally answer the Court Clerk's question, "Is this your verdict?" with "YES", and not "NOT GUILTY" as you imply above BOSTATE.  That is how they always do it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    Any juror who doesn't to that conclusion, at least that much, is a moron.



    Is English a second language for you dumbkoff?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

    Any juror who doesn't to that conclusion, at least that much, is a moron.

     



    Is English a second language for you dumbkoff?

     


    Why are you so hard core, man?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Any juror who doesn't to that conclusion, at least that much, is a moron.

     

     

     



    Is English a second language for you dumbkoff?

     

     

     

     

     


    Why are you so hard core, man?

     

     




    Because this imbecile does exactly the same thing to other people all the time.

    Why would you possibly care what sin I punish Rusty for and then ignore his 1000 insults a day to other posters? Hmmm?

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"
    That's all they say.

     



    Exactly.  They don't make any further determination.  Juries (in criminal cases) have the duty to determine whether someone is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Other than that, their verdict means nothing.  As citizens, we all have the duty to assume innocence unless the jury finds otherwise.  And because of that, Zimmerman is indisputably innocent of the charges.  That said, the jury made no statement that anything he said is true.  That's not what juries do. They simply comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. 

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     



    The same thing could be done in Canada.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"
    That's all they say.

     

     

     



    Exactly.  They don't make any further determination.  Juries (in criminal cases) have the duty to determine whether someone is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Other than that, their verdict means nothing.  As citizens, we all have the duty to assume innocence unless the jury finds otherwise.  And because of that, Zimmerman is indisputably innocent of the charges.  That said, the jury made no statement that anything he said is true.  That's not what juries do. They simply comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. 

     

     

     

     


     Are you really saying this? A man who killed someone claimed it was self defense. The state filed murder-2 charges and couldn't prove it, nor a lesser charge. THEREFORE, the man killed a man in AS HE TESTIFIED, IN SELF DEFENSE. PERIOD. GZ is known by the courts as having kiled in self defense. The JURY doesn't make that determination, it is assumed upon their issuance of "NOT GUILTY". What don't you get here........HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A COURT DECLARING "SELF DEFENSE"? There is no such ruling. That isn't how it works. You yourself said that the Jury couldn't not prove self defense, right? What do you think that means???? Now stop tring to distract from the original reason why I had to explain all of this to you in the first place, ITS OFFICIALLY CATEGORIZED AS GZ KILLED TM IN SELF DEFENSE, HOMEY.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    As I've said, I think the jury was right to acquit because of the lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is being truthful.  What is clear to me is that Zimmerman didn't really need to follow Martin or get out of his car with his gun.  By doing that, he seemed to spark a chain of (unclear) events that led to Martin's death.  I can't say whether Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense or not when he shot Martin. Neither can anyone else honestly, because none of us was there.  I do know for sure, though, that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, and personally, I find his following Martin while armed troubling.  It's not illegal, but I think it should be.  

     



    You generally make some sense here. See, you can do it. Just put that agenda aside and be objective.

     

    I'm not sure exactly what law you would want to pass that prohibits someone armed from following somebody though. How would that work?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"

     

     

     


    OK, I'm with ya. NOT GUILTY automatically rules that GZ was acting in self defense.  They all had to agree "NOT GUILTY" or we'd still be at it.....What are you implying?

     



    Actually, not implying anything.  It just seemed to be a point of discussion ands I thought I could help.  Now I'll correct myself; after the deputy reads the jury verdict of "not guilty" the jury is polled and asked if that is their verdict and the answer "yes"

     

    I have heard that no one is ever found "innocent", just "not guilty".   

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     Gotcha. Thanks, man!

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  What they found was that there was not enough evidence to prove that he did not act, as he claimed, in self defense.  There's a subtle difference here. The first assumes the jury agreed that Martin was the attacker.  The second makes no assumption at all about who attacked whom first, it simply states that there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman wasn't attacked first and wasn't acting in self-defense.

    I don't know who attacked whom first and neither really does anyone else, except maybe Zimmerman.  What I do know, though, is that if average Americans are allowed to carry guns and pursue people whom they find suspicious, confrontations like the one between Martin and Zimmerman are likely to happen and people (many of them innocent) will be killed.  I don't think that's very good public policy.  Obviously, lots of Americans disagree.  Portfolio says there's lots of "rationalization" going on.  I actually might refer to what I'm witnessing here and elsewhere as "celebration."  I think a lot of Americans love the fantasy of killing someone in self defense.  That's why so many Americans love to carry guns around.  Personally, I don't see any reason to carry a gun unless you want to use it.  I know I use mine when I carry them . . . but I only carry them when I'm hunting.  I'm very suspicious of anyone who totes a gun around for self-defense. My immediate reaction is that they're looking for someone to shoot . . . just waiting for that chance to show they have (as Sportsbozo1 called it) "superior firepower."  I think that's what Zimmerman was all about.  He was toting around his gun looking for an excuse to use it and finally got the excuse.  As a result a young man died unnecessarily.  If Zimmerman didn't have the gun and didn't feel a need to act like vigilante no one would have died.  The whole situation was completely unnecessary and only happened because in America acting out violent fantasies is something a lot of people defend. 

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"

     

     

     


    OK, I'm with ya. NOT GUILTY automatically rules that GZ was acting in self defense.  They all had to agree "NOT GUILTY" or we'd still be at it.....What are you implying?

     



    Actually, not implying anything.  It just seemed to be a point of discussion ands I thought I could help.  Now I'll correct myself; after the deputy reads the jury verdict of "not guilty" the jury is polled and asked if that is their verdict and the answer "yes"

     

    I have heard that no one is ever found "innocent", just "not guilty".   




     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    I


    Z

    How do you know and why do you keep saying he was an innocent 17yo?

    How do you know he wasn't planning another burglary and acting suspicious in doing so?

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Martin was committing a crime or planning to commit a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him?  Whether or not he had done something bad in the past is completely irrelevant. 

    As far as what was in his backpack at school, it has no bearing on this particular event.  And, in fact, the Boston Globe reported this about the jewelry:

    SANFORD, Fla.—Women's jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.

    The conservative web site you refer to does not seem to be a very reliable source, but even if Martin had broken the law in the past, it's completely irrelevant to what happened when he was shot because there's no evidence at all that he was committing a crime then.   

     




    Well, the Miami Herald reported the same jewelry was found but did not tie it to the burglary, just blocks away. Regardless, the incident was kept internally and never disclosed.

     

    The police did not tie it to the burglary either.  The police department has stated that none of the items were reported stolen.  Maybe they were stolen.  But no charges were laid and no trial was ever held.  You are convicting Martin on evidence even more flimsy than that against Zimmerman (who's fingerprints were the only ones on the gun used to kill Martin) and without any trial at all.  Is only Zimmerman given the protection of being innocent unless proven guilty?  It seems like you've convicted Martin based on flimsy newspaper articles . . .  and decided that a death sentence isn't too much.   

    Sorry but wedding bands and diamond earrings along with a long flat head are not usually items 16 yr olds carry in their backpack and there is plenty reason to suspect a crime but it was never pursued.   It was also never reported to his parents.  Wouldn't you be asking questions if you found your child to be in possession of those.  Would you accept that an unnamed friend gave them to him?

    Would I think my kid deserved to be shot because he had jewelry?  How 'bout you?  If your kid came home from school with some jewelry, would you think it were okay if some guy decided to shoot him dead?  

    It's very possible that his past has everything to do with the case as the items were found in trying to find the marking instrument as he was also seen on film "acting suspiciously", hiding and ducking, and ultimately caught committing a crime as a result and suspended.

    The initial call to 911 paints a similar scenario and as reported, there was a current problem with break-ins in the area. 

    Did Martin commit those break ins?  Of is suspicion enough to kill someone just because a crime has happened that that person may or may not have been involved in?  You're basically arguing that killing Martin was justified because someone (likely no him) had broken into someone's house.  

    He was doing what he always did in an attempt to deter a crime.  He was a law abiding citizen with a license to carry a gun.  What is the problem with that?

    Well he shot a teenager dead who apparently was not in the act of committing a crime.  I think that's problematic.  I'm really delighted to find out though how many Americans really don't find any problem with it at all.  Great place that country has become.  I assume you also think Newtown was just something that happens . . . price we pay for the freedom to tote around guns . . . 

    There is also evidence as another poster stated that he did stop the pursuit, after being told to, and Martin came back to him. 

    The evidence is pretty weak both ways, which is why it was probably right to acquit Zimmerman. But Zimmerman's acquittal  hardly means that Martin was convicted. 

    So what do you do then?  Let the guy bash your head in and reach for your gun?

    He was in a fight for his life with a not so innocent person.

    He claims that.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The problem is there is no evidence either way other than Zimmerman's testimony.  And let's face it, Zimmerman might have a reason to lie, no?  

    I really doubt he would have used it otherwise.

    Yeah, people who walk around with guns, call the police and say a kid walking down the street looks suspicious, then tell the police "these assh*les always get away," then pursues the kid for 20 minutes, then gets out of his car to confront the kid certainly couldn't be looking for trouble.  No, I'm sure Zimmerman had no idea why he was carrying that gun. Shooting someone with it never entered his mind. 

     



     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     



    The same thing could be done in Canada.

     



    You could shoot the kids, but the law already has limited ownership of the kinds of large capacity weapons what's-his-name used to shoot up all those kids.  And whether it has anything at all to do with the gun laws or not, violent gun crime is much rarer up here than it is there. 

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     


    As I've said, I think the jury was right to acquit because of the lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is being truthful.  What is clear to me is that Zimmerman didn't really need to follow Martin or get out of his car with his gun.  By doing that, he seemed to spark a chain of (unclear) events that led to Martin's death.  I can't say whether Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense or not when he shot Martin. Neither can anyone else honestly, because none of us was there.  I do know for sure, though, that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, and personally, I find his following Martin while armed troubling.  It's not illegal, but I think it should be.  

     

     



    You generally make some sense here. See, you can do it. Just put that agenda aside and be objective.

     

     

    I'm not sure exactly what law you would want to pass that prohibits someone armed from following somebody though. How would that work?



    I guess I have no more agenda than anyone else does . . . which is not to say I or anyone else doesn't have an agenda . . . everyone has their opinions, after all, and no one I've ever met is completely unbiased and objective.  

    As far as legal remedies, the first would be to make it illegal to carry handguns.  I know that runs into Constitutional issues, but the Constitution can be changed and it's not clear that all regulations on guns are unconstitutional.  You have a right to free speech too, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Regulation of the free speech right is possible . . . why not regulation of guns?

    A second solution would be to say that, if you are carrying a weapon, you can use it only if you are attacked and have no chance at any time to retreat and do not in any way initiate contact that could be considered aggressive.  Zimmerman's following Martin could be seen as initiating contact in an aggressive manner.  I think the law should have some way of recognizing that and saying that self defense is legitimate only if you are essentially attacked while doing nothing that might be considered provocative.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share